May a priest act upon knowledge from confessional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Administrator
Staff member
We all know that a priest may never divulge to anyone what is said to him in confession.

However, can a priest act upon such knowledge without actually saying anything? For instance, a person comes into the confessional and says “I am going to break into the church tonight and set it on fire”. Can the priest keep watch that night? Can he listen for any strange sounds? If he hears a break-in, can he run to the church to try and stop the person before he sets the fire?

I know it is a hypothetical, but I still think it is a question worth entertaining.
 
He could probably decide to spend some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and if he witnessed someone breaking in he could then act. But if someone confesses something that hasnt happened, isn’t that more of a threat? Does the seal still apply? It’s not quite the same as confessing and asking for forgiveness for something already done.
 
My understanding is that if it happens in the confessional, at a time that the priest is there for the purpose of hearing confessions, the seal indeed exists. In fact, two or three times when I have had to speak to a priest within the boundaries of the confessional (on private matters that weren’t related to sin or confession), nonetheless I was explicit towards them that I had no expectation of confessional secrecy.

My question was more along the lines of “the priest has this knowledge, so does he just go ahead and proceed with his evening as he normally would, fix dinner, retire to bed at the usual time, go out (for instance) to the theater or the grocery store if he’d already made these plans, and so on? Or does he remain extra-vigilant and ready to respond now that he has this information?”.
 
Last edited:
I think he would exercise charity and find other methods for preventing a sin from taking place. And again, it’s one matter to speak to a priest under the seal so that it remains confidential, but it’s an abuse to use that seal as a way of almost taunting the priest.
Imagine if someone came in and said, Father, I’m going to kill X tonight. You aren’t confessing a sin, you’re making a threat. To prevent these types of abuses from taking place, I think Father would be allowed to find some way to check up on X tonight, without divulging that he knew of a threat against their life. Then he acts in charity to prevent a sin from occurring without revealing the one who has planned to sin.
 
Last edited:
I think there’s an indie movie which deals with this idea. I don’t remember the title, and I have no idea how Catholic it actually is, but in the trailer a prostitute comes into the confessional and tells Father she’s planning on committing suicide on her birthday. The priest tries to get her to stay and talk, but they run out of time before Mass and she bolts out the door. He then goes out into the city’s seedy underbelly and attempts to find this girl and save her life. He doesn’t call the cops, or the psych ward, but he does everything in his own power to help her.
Seems reasonable to me.
 
Last edited:
I asked a priest friend once what he would do if his secretary confessed that she was stealing from the petty cash. Would he take steps to lock it up or keep a close watch on it. He said he couldn’t do that. However, he would encourage her to discuss it with him outside the confessional. If she was confessing it he would want to help her overcome it, but he couldn’t act on what he learned during the sacrament. I assume the same would hold true of a more serious thing as well.
 
He cannot use information gained in Confession against the penitent in any way. This in no way precludes him from acting on information obtained outside of Confession.
 
If a person’s “Confession” clearly has no intent to actually confess sins and receive absolution, there is no sacrament that takes place and there is no Seal.

So if a “penitent” walks into the Confessional and tells a priest he is going to do such and such crime, the priest should in theory be able to prevent the action. Because of the severity of the Seal and the absolute nature of it, this is something they would want to talk to their bishop about.

“Confession” and “penitent” are put in quotations because neither of them applies to a person using the Confessional as a mockery or for dark humor.
 
Last edited:
powerandglory said:
He could probably decide to spend some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and if he witnessed someone breaking in he could then act. But if someone confesses something that hasnt happened, isn’t that more of a threat? Does the seal still apply? It’s not quite the same as confessing and asking for forgiveness for something already done.
Click to expand...
No. There is no Seal where there is clearly no intent to Confess.

Priests generally set aside a specific time for hearing Confessions but there is no “magic” that takes place between 3 and 4 o’clock if that is when a priest usually hears Confessions. A priest can celebrate the sacrament at any time at any day. If it is obvious there is no intent to Confess, then there is no Seal. This is why priests aren’t bound to the Seal in casual conversation, since it is obvious there is no intent to celebrate Confession in these instances, even though a person could (and sometimes does) celebrate the sacrament in a hallway, a lounge, or on the sidewalk. A penitent always makes it explicit when they intend to Confess.

If a prankster goes into the Confessional during regularly scheduled Confession times and tells a priest he is going to burn down a building, I expect the bishop would be contacting the authorities shortly.
 
Last edited:
"So what does all this mean for the priest who hears the confession of a person who admits that he intends to kill somebody, or who sexually molests children and doesn’t indicate that he will stop? Priests are faced with such difficult situations more often than we laity might think! What are they permitted to do?

Firstly, of course, a confessor can latch onto the fact that if a would-be murderer or child molester has come to confession, he presumably regrets this action and wants to amend his life. The priest can talk this through with the penitent and try to get him to see what true amendment entails. At the very least, he can explain that he cannot impart absolution if the person does not firmly intend to stop committing the sort of sin that he has confessed. Depending on the situation, he may also be able to encourage the person to turn himself in to the authorities. The priest might even offer to accompany the penitent to the police station when he does this; but in such a case he would still be forbidden to repeat the contents of the person’s confession to others. If the penitent wanted him to do so, it would be necessary for him to repeat to the priest, outside the confessional, the things which he had told him in confession. In this way the priest could discuss the penitent’s situation, yet the seal of the confessional would remain inviolate."

 
TK421 said:
A penitent always makes it explicit when they intend to Confess.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, sometimes people will sit down with a priest and just start telling him their life story. In some cases it is the priest who suggests they make it into a Confession. Most people who enter a confessional would do so with the intent of receiving the Sacrament, but not everyone receiving the Sacrament had the explicit intention of doing so ahead of time.
 
But for any actual sacrament to take place, there absolutely must be an intent by the penitent to Confess. i.e. there is no such thing as an accidental Confession. A person might start off with a conversation with a priest and by the end of it they might decide to celebrate the sacrament, but the sacrament is always an explicit decision.

Nor could a person have a conversation with a priest and afterwards say “Oh, uh…Father, that was a Confession!” under some weird legalistic pretext that the priest is suddenly bound by the Seal.

The Seal is absolute but it applies to Confession and only Confession. A priest is not a walking repository where a person can store secrets.
 
Last edited:
Can you provide any single instance of a priest revealing something told to him by an unrepentant would-be sinner? And yet, it (revealing of would be crimes) has happened or canon law wouldn’t address it.
I know what you mean, but I think it’s pretty clear that a priest is still bound not to reveal what has been said, whether there’s been an absolution granted or not. He can try and convince the person not to act in such a way, and he might be able to try and find a reason for preventing that crime from occurring, but he can’t reveal what’s been told to him.
 
Last edited:
@powerandglory

I’m not aware of any such examples. I have heard this concept discussed in theology but I don’t know if you’ll find an article on the web talking about it due to the gravity of the topic and because of how obscure the situation is. Priests sometimes risk jail and punishment for maintaining the Seal. Also, the priest can take measures to protect a person without ever breaking the Seal, so any dilemma where they could possibly breach canon law (which is always forbidden) is avoided.

But it is clear that the Seal applies in some situations and not in others, since priests only maintain the Seal in Confession and not in their everyday lives. They might still almost always maintain confidentiality outside of Confession because it is the decent and charitable and professional thing to do, but the Seal serves a very specific purpose.
 
Last edited:
In AA1025, the communist infiltrator divulged in the confessional the schemes he as a priest had been doing (even murdering a priest so he could get into the priesthood). The confessor must have known the man had no faith, and was only “confessing” for some sort of personal gratification. He told the communist infiltrator it didn’t matter what he said, because he wouldn’t remember any of it when he walked out of the confessional…
 
HomeschoolDad said:
However, can a priest act upon such knowledge without actually saying anything? For instance, a person comes into the confessional and says “I am going to break into the church tonight and set it on fire”.
Click to expand...
That’s not a confession of a sin that the person had committed.
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I asked a priest friend once what he would do if his secretary confessed that she was stealing from the petty cash. Would he take steps to lock it up or keep a close watch on it. He said he couldn’t do that.
Click to expand...
This one is a confession of a sin previously committed.

It’s also an example of the reason why church employees are generally recommended not to go to confession to their pastor (i.e., their boss).
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I asked a priest friend once what he would do if his secretary confessed that she was stealing from the petty cash. Would he take steps to lock it up or keep a close watch on it. He said he couldn’t do that.
Click to expand...
A priest can’t act on information disclosed in the sacrament to the detriment of the penitent. So, using the example of your friend, he couldn’t conduct a “routine” audit of the books nor could he set up a hidden camera to catch the secretary in the act and he certainly couldn’t fire her. However there’s nothing to stop him from locking it up or removing it altogether provided there’s no danger of disclosure (like other workers asking awkward questions). The same also applies to Joe Burglar confessing that he likes to burgle churches - the priest can make sure that the church is secure that night, To use a more positive example, if a priest gets a good tip on a horse from a penitent there’s nothing to stop him from placing a bet on it.

Admittedly it can be difficult to know where the line lies (and canon lawyers are divided on this). I’ve had somebody say to me in confession that they were contemplating self-harm - arguably this isn’t a sin and some might argue the seal doesn’t apply. However, for the sake of the integrity of the sacrament I asked them to come and see me afterwards, explaining that I couldn’t tell anyone else (and get them help) otherwise.
 
Last edited:
InThePew said:
To use a more positive example, if a priest gets a good tip on a horse from a penitent there’s nothing to stop him from placing a bet on it.
Click to expand...
This is priceless! I love it! This was an excellent example to show that not all matters such as this have to be so grim and melodramatic.
 
The first thing, we cannot confess “future sins” so the person’s statement would not be a confession.
 
From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Click to expand...
Usually, the hypothetical example is someone confessing to having poisoned the wine that will be used at Mass. That way, the person is confessing a past action that has harmful future effects for the priest rather than confessing something they haven’t even done yet. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top